Here. Including a vignette about how Dr. Meyer owned a materialist who lied about Newton’s approach to science.
Comments
Seversky states:
"So, yes, in a sense, ‘truth’ does depend on a show of hands. In science, it’s called replication."
So why then do you personally believe in Darwinian evolution? The grandiose claims of Darwinists are not replicable, and what is replicable disproves Darwinian evolution.
“In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
- Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic, April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago
Stephen Jay Gould argued that if it were possible to ‘rewind the tape of life’, the history of life would not repeat itself. ‘The world would be unfamiliar, and most likely lack humans’.
"Stephen Jay Gould, who popularised the tape of life metaphor, argue that if it were possible to turn back the clock, the history of life would not repeat itself. The world would be unfamiliar, and most likely lack humans.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26857-tape-of-life-may-not-always-be-random/
The reason Gould argued that he would expect a totally different outcome for life is because of ‘randomness’. Completely free and unguided randomness, is held to be the driving creative force behind Darwinian evolution. Randomness by its very nature defies replication.
In fact Richard Lenski himself, in his Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), held that the infamous citrate adaptation he observed was a non-repeatable contingent event and that it was therefore undeniable proof for Darwinian evolution.
Yet, in an experiment that Lenski did not take kindly to in the least, Scott Minnich came along and falsified Lenski’s claim that it was Darwinian evolution by showing the adaptation was a repeatable event and that it was therefore not a random Darwinian event,
Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. – Minnich – Feb. 2016
The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,,
Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,,
E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416
Likewise, antibiotic resistance is a repeatable, non-Darwinian, event that "is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, "
(Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012
Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183#
Besides Minnich falsifying Lenski’s supposed proof of ‘non-repeatable’ Darwinian evolution, and repeatable antibiotic resistance that could be billions of years old, Darwinian evolution’ is also falsified by numerous instances of so called ‘convergent evolution’. (Repeated patterns where, if random Darwinian evolution were true, repeated patterns should not be)
Claims about convergent evolution are absurd _ Feb. 2017
1. C4 photosynthesis. According to ‘science’ it has evolved 60 times independently. Scientists have not succeeded in building an autonomous photosynthesis system. But evolution has done this for 60 times! Seems to be easy!
2. Eye 35 times. Think about the complex mechanism and signaling pathways that are connected with brain. And according to ‘science’ humans and squids evolved same eyes using same genes. What a coincidence!
3. Giving birth, 150 times. Piece of cake for evolution. Very convincing.
4. Carnivorous plants. Nitrogen-deficient plants have in at least 7 distinct times become carnivorous.
5. Hearing. 30 times. Bats and dolphins separately evolved same sonar gene. What a surprise! (Do they really think that one gene is sufficient for developing a sonar ability?)
6. Bioluminescence is quite a mystery for science. According to darwinists it has independently evolved even 27 times!
7. Magnetite for orientation, magnetically charged particles of magnetite for directional sensing have been found in unrelated species of salmon, rainbow trout, some butterflies and birds.
8. Electric organ in some fishes. 6 times. Independently from each other. Sure.
9. Parthenogenesis. Some lizards, insects, fishes and rodents are able to reproduce asexually, without males.
Etc.. etc.. etc..
http://sciencerefutesevolution.blogspot.fi/2017/02/claims-about-convergent-evolution-are.html
Simon Conway Morris has a website documenting hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of unexpected ‘convergent evolution’:
Map Of Life – Simon Conway Morris
http://www.mapoflife.org/browse/
In reality, the appeal to ‘convergent evolution’ by Darwinists, instead of being a realistic ‘scientific explanation’, reflects the unscientific nature of Darwinian evolution in that unexpected empirical findings are never allowed to falsify the core claims of the supposed ‘scientific’ theory of Darwinian evolution:
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin February 9, 2015
Excerpt: Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,,
Biochemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution.126 Each case shows an example where biological similarity — even at the genetic level — is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. So what does this do to the main assumption of tree-building that biological similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor? With so many exceptions to the rule, one has to wonder if the rule itself holds merit.,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_7_conve091161.htmlversky, why do
So again Seversky, why then do you personally believe in Darwinian evolution? The grandiose claims of Darwinists are not replicable, and what is replicable disproves the core claim that Darwinian evolution is inherently random.
As to Christianity in particular, I hold that John 1:1-4 is head and shoulders above any other worldview as to correctly "predicting' that the universe and life would both be found to be information theoretic in their foundational basis:
John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
January 16, 2019
January
01
Jan
16
16
2019
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
EugeneS @ 4
“The Christian God is far from being the only such being in which people believe or have believed.”
And? How on earth can that prove or disprove whether Christianity is God-revealed?
It can't. And if Stephen Meyer claims that the Creator could just as easily be Allah or Odin or Shiva or any of the other beings from the various creation mythologies around the world then his position would be unobjectionable on that question. But somehow I doubt that's the case.
Does your notion of ‘truth’ depend on a show of hands?
If I tell you that I tried to drop a stone but it flew up in the air and disappeared out of sight, would you believe me? Probably not. Why not? Because every time you have dropped a stone it has fallen to the ground and, when you check with other people, they report the same experience. So, yes, in a sense, 'truth' does depend on a show of hands. In science, it's called replication.Seversky
January 16, 2019
January
01
Jan
16
16
2019
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Ed George:
With my luck it will be prunes.
But is a prune still a fruit? It may have been a fruit at one time but that time has passed.
So if you are being served prunes the odds are you didn't make it to the place you thought you were going.ET
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Vmahuna, Bart Ehrman is considered one of the leading, if not THE leading, critics of the Bible today.
Yet. in the hands of a skilled apologist, Bart Ehrman's arguments soon dissolve into sheer nonsense.
Why You Don't Let Bart Ehrman Interpret the Bible for You - video 6:00 minute mark
https://youtu.be/rjFqbVR_Ogw?t=365
My point being Vmahuna, if the leading supposedly 'scholarly' critic of the Bible today can have his arguments torn down so easily by a skilled apologist, should not you yourself reconsider your own position on Christianity and take it more seriously than you have up to now?bornagain77
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Vmahuna
The Just get to eat FRUIT… for Eternity.
With my luck it will be prunes.Ed George
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Vmahuna.
If that is what you think Christianity is then you are sadly mistaken. Why do people make such ignorant claims? Why?Andre
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Vmahuna, as to your, to put it mildly, unscholarly rant against Christianity yesterday,,,
I’ve now read both a book on how all of Christianity was a MISUNDERSTANDING of The Mystery Religion (the Egyptian version names the Virgin “Isis”),
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelicals-waving-goodbye-to-adam-and-eve/#comment-671213
And yet, “Professional scholars unanimously reject the claim that Jesus is a pagan copy.”
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelicals-waving-goodbye-to-adam-and-eve/#comment-671216
,, and as to your continued unscholarly rant against Christianity today, might I suggest that you need to read a little more deeply in apologetics than just the 'tabloid' books against Christianity that you seem to be prone to accepting as undeniably true?,,, Might I also suggest starting with Dr. Timothy McGrew?
Tim McGrew
http://historicalapologetics.org/dr-timothy-mcgrew/
WELCOME TO THE LIBRARY OF HISTORICAL APOLOGETICS
http://historicalapologetics.org/
bornagain77
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
I'm goin' with Seversky. The Celts had a MUCH different view of God and Heaven, and as near as I can tell, the argument for Christianity comes down to "believe in OUR version of God or spend eternity burning in a lake of fire." Re-read the Parable of the Workmen: EVERYBODY gets the same payout REGARDLESS of what they do. That's the PURPOSE of a Parable: it teaches a lesson by telling an UNRELATED story. I think it's in "The Apocalyptic of Peter" that after a VERY long list of tortures for those sent to Hell, the ONLY reward for going to Heaven was you get to eat FRUIT. Not even cookies and ice cream (which hadn't yet been invented by Humans, but should obviously have been known to Whoever was providing Peter with his Vision) or cake. The Just get to eat FRUIT... for Eternity.vmahuna
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
RE Laplace in Barry's comment #5- PS Laplace is commonly misquoted and misunderstood with respect to God. Ironically Wikipedia, of all LaPlaces, does a good job at setting the record straight- Pierre-Simon Laplace on God - for example:
In fact Laplace never said that. Here, I believe, is what truly happened. Newton, believing that the secular perturbations which he had sketched out in his theory would in the long run end up destroying the Solar System, says somewhere that God was obliged to intervene from time to time to remedy the evil and somehow keep the system working properly. This, however, was a pure supposition suggested to Newton by an incomplete view of the conditions of the stability of our little world. Science was not yet advanced enough at that time to bring these conditions into full view. But Laplace, who had discovered them by a deep analysis, would have replied to the First Consul that Newton had wrongly invoked the intervention of God to adjust from time to time the machine of the world (la machine du monde) and that he, Laplace, had no need of such an assumption. It was not God, therefore, that Laplace treated as a hypothesis, but his intervention in a certain place.
I just happened upon that while researching the man because I had thought that he did indeed get rid of the design inference with respect to the solar system and universe.ET
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Ed George:
I assure you that my friend is serious about his claim.
All insane people usually are.ET
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
"he said that he can chose to be a Christian however he wants"
Ed George,
This certainly indicates he doesn't know what a Christian is.
Andrewasauber
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Barry
But if one rejects every single tenet of the ancient creeds, one cannot seriously claim to be a Christian in any meaningful sense.
I assure you that my friend is serious about his claim. And, to be honest, he carries himself in a more "Christian" fashion than many church going Christians that I know, including, I hate to admit, myself. He may be deluding himself, but there are worse delusions to have.Ed George
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
What if someone claims to be an atheist, but believes in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, immortal, uncaused being, and believes this being came to earth incarnated as a man, who was killed but then rose again from the dead and then went to live in an ethereal realm where there is no death, pain or unhappiness, and provides this possibility to all who trust him, and this same atheist believes this wholeheartedly and follows the supposed teachings of the incarnate being and indeed hopes to himself eventually live in the ethereal realm, all because he is completely convinced of the truth of these claims from empirical science, logical reasoning, and historical records? Is such a person correct in claiming to be an atheist?EricMH
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Ed
I have a friend who claims to be Christian but doesn’t believe that God exists
"Christianity" is a classification. Like all classifications it includes and, by definition, also excludes. Who is included in the classification? You suggest that included in the classification is "anyone who calls himself a Christian even if he rejects the basic tenets of the faith that have been declared by all Christians everywhere for nearly 2,000 years."
Allow me to suggest that your friend is sadly deluded. The only reasonable definition of a Christian is a person who confesses the core tenets of the faith that have been confessed by all Christians everywhere for 2,000 years. This leaves a lot of room for variety (as you note, there are several strains of Christianity), because the core tenets of the faith are actually very few (the ancient creeds are quite short). But if one rejects every single tenet of the ancient creeds, one cannot seriously claim to be a Christian in any meaningful sense.Barry Arrington
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Severesky:
The Christian God is far from being the only such being in which people believe or have believed.
But the Christian God is, in fact, the ONLY such Being who has revealed Himself to humankind.PaV
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
@ 3 Seversky asks:
Has there been any significant change since William Paley’s Natural Theology?
Apparently Seversky did not bother to watch the video, and is still stuck in the 1700s and early 1800s of William Paley. As Stephen Meyer pointed out, many things, scientifically speaking, have changed since Paley's time
And here are few (sixteen) more things that, scientifically speaking, have changed since the time of Paley that have been (repeatedly) pointed out to Seversky:
(January 2019 - defense of all 16 Theistic predictions against Seversky's atheistic counterclaims)
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/michael-shermers-case-for-scientific-naturalism/#comment-670894
And Seversky, instead of trying to defend his indefensible, even illusory, materialistic worldview, Seversky then tries to belittle Christianity by saying that...
"The Christian God is far from being the only such being in which people believe or have believed."
Apparently if Seversky ever decided to give up his completely insane materialistic worldview, and adopt a Theistic worldview, Christianity would be far from the first Theistic worldview that Seversky would be inclined to take up. Which raises the question as to why is Seversky so biased against Christianity in particular?
But anyways, despite Seversky not too subtle bias against Christianity in particular, the fact remains that, although there are certainly other monotheistic faiths in the world, i.e. Judaism and Islam, that it was the Christian worldview, and the Christian worldview alone, that gave rise to the modern scientific revolution:
Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011
Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature.
- per evolution news and views
The Christian Origins of Science - Jack Kerwick - Apr 15, 2017
Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,,
Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,,
In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.”
He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.”
https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593
"Did Christianity (and Other Religions) Promote the Rise Of Science?" - Michael Egnor October 24, 2013
Excerpt: Neither the Greeks nor Islam produced modern theoretical science. The Greeks produced sublime philosophy and mathematics, but no theoretical science. They excelled in mathematics but never applied mathematical models to the systematic study of nature.
Islam produced no real theoretical science. It invaded the Christian Middle East, Christian North Africa and Christian Spain, and expropriated the culture and work of Christians and Jews and pagans in the conquered lands. Centralized government and fresh availability of booty fostered a modest bit of science produced by the conquered locals -- the vast majority of whom were not Muslim for centuries.
It took several centuries before most of the conquered peoples under the Islamic boot converted to Islam -- Islamic rulers coveted the dhimmi taxes and were not quick to force conversion -- and when Islamic lands became wholly Islamic, science became wholly dead.
- per evolution news and views
The So Called Golden Age Of Islam (and supposed 'Dark Ages' of Europe) was an Age of Cruel Barbarity against Christians - video (12:12 minute mark) - Dr. Bill Warner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y#t=732
Naturally the question arises as to why it would be the Christian worldview in particular, rather than one of the other monotheistic faiths, that would give rise to the scientific revolution.
The following article gives us a small clue as to answering that specific question:
The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010
Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,,
Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,
If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/
As, hopefully, we can now somewhat see, the tendency of the intellectuals in other monotheistic faiths was to drift into pantheism, (i.e. to identify God with the universe), whereas in Christianity, due to the incarnation of Christ, the 'purity' of God maintaining His transcendence of creation was retained. ,,, And this transcendence of God above His creation was apparently necessary for seeing the universe, besides being rational and intelligible (as the other monotheistic faiths also certainly held to be true), but also seeing the universe as being contingent in its existence instead of necessary. To repeat, " The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
Thus, the Christian view of contingency, even a view of 'divine choice' calling the universe into existence, enabled by the incarnate God, who was necessarily seen as transcendent of His creation, is the 'subtle' distinction that separated Christianity from the other monotheistic faiths, and is what ultimately enabled the rise of modern science.
Of course, someone with more Theological background than I can flesh this 'subtle' distinction out more clearly and succinctly than I have done thus far. But in regards to a rough overview of the Christian mindset that lay behind the founding of modern science, I believe, with my emphasis on transcendence, I have roughly, and fairly, captured the basic medieval Christian mindset that Stanley Jaki was trying to elucidate that lay behind the founding of modern science.
As to this specific statement from the article, "The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being"
In regards to "divine choice" in particular, it is interesting to note that this Christian presupposition of 'divine choice' that lay at the founding of modern science has now been empirically confirmed:
(December 2018) Neuroscientific and quantum validation of free will
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/three-knockdown-proofs-of-the-immateriality-of-mind-and-why-computers-compute-not-think/#comment-670445
Moreover, by allowing the Agent causality God back into the picture of modern physics, as quantum physics itself now demands, and as the Christian founders of modern physics originally envisioned, (Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and Max Planck, to name a few), then an empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, i.e. the ‘Theory of Everything’, readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
Short take: Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” December 2018:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quantum-physicist-the-particle-itself-does-not-know-where-it-is/#comment-669088
Thus in conclusion, the Christian view of 'divine choice' (and contingency) was necessary for the rise of modern science and also the Christian view of 'divine choice' (and contingency) is what (coincidentally) also brings the 'ultimate' resolution to science in providing us with a (VERY) credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into the quote unquote "Theory of Everything"
All in All, Christianity, far from being anti-science, is THE ONLY worldview that can claim both to be necessary for the founding of modern science and also to be necessary for bringing an ultimate resolution to science in the much sought after 'Theory of Everything".
Verse, video, and articles:
Colossians 1:15-20
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" - video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
Comment
The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
http://www.predatormastersforums.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3014106
Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
http://www.academicjournals.org/app/webroot/article/article1380798649_Antonacci.pdf
bornagain77
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Barry
I would be interested to know why you put that “most” in there.
I have a friend who claims to be Christian but doesn’t believe that God exists. When I asked how this was possible he said That he believed in and attempted to follow many of the teachings of Christ. When I said that to be Christian, you had to believe in God, he said that he can chose to be a Christian however he wants. Given the great variation in how Christianity is followed, I can’t really disagree. I am happy whenever people follow Christ’s teaching in how the interact with others.Ed George
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Sev
The God of Christianity is a putative deity, believed in by (most) Christians . . .
I would be interested to know why you put that "most" in there. Are you suggesting that one can be a Christian while denying its most basic tenant?
Has such a hypothesis ever gone away?
Perhaps you should ask LaPlace
ID points to a powerful, intelligent being. It does not necessarily point to the Christian God, though many ID proponents are Christians.
Barry Arrington
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Seversky
"The Christian God is far from being the only such being in which people believe or have believed."
And? How on earth can that prove or disprove whether Christianity is God-revealed? Does your notion of 'truth' depend on a show of hands?EugeneS
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God
The God of Christianity is a putative deity, believed in by (most) Christians, although there is some debate over its nature. The Christian God is far from being the only such being in which people believe or have believed.
A God hypothesis presumably is that such a being is the author or creator of all that exists. Has such a hypothesis ever gone away so that it can now return? Has there been any significant change since William Paley's Natural Theology?Seversky
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
The book by Dr. Meyer on this subject is due out August 20, 2019
The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God Hardcover – August 20, 2019 by Stephen C. Meyer
https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505
Vmahuna, here is a another link to the video:
The Problem of God and Science | Romans 1:20 + Psalm 19 | Dr. Stephen C. Meyer - video
https://vimeo.com/311288926
bornagain77
January 15, 2019
January
01
Jan
15
15
2019
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Um, the "here" goes to an opening page with a whole slough (a word frequently misspelt by those who have never seen The Shaganashkee Slough) of title pages for unrelated articles.vmahuna